O'Donnell: separation of church from state"not in Constitution"

[Bilge_Rat]

I know we can only pick on her for two more weeks

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...separation/?hp

not a big news story in itself, but since some members here (Aramike I believe ) follow the same reasoning, I thought it may be of interest.

She is correct. I challenge you to find the words 'seperation between church', or 'seperation of church and state', or any dirivative there of in the US consitution.

[tater]

To think the republicans would have won handily, instead we get this moron running. She's an idiot. Read the text, she didn't know what was in the first amendment, she wasn't arguing that the exact wording was not there (as her backpedalling staff later said trying to save her stupid ass).

She's a low-grade moron. At best.

[AVGWarhawk]

She's a low-grade moron. At best.

And will fit in perfectly at Capitol Hill.

Originally Posted by tater

To think the republicans would have won handily, instead we get this moron running. She's an idiot. Read the text, she didn't know what was in the first amendment, she wasn't arguing that the exact wording was not there (as her backpedalling staff later said trying to save her stupid ass).

She's a low-grade moron. At best.

No one expects her to win in a clearly low populace blue state any way.

[tater]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

No one expects her to win in a clearly low populace blue state any way.

No, the Republican she ran against in the primary would have STOMPED Coons. He was polling way ahead. Coons was picked as a sacrifice because he simply could not win—then this utter moron won the primary. This seat was not in play, it was a "gimme" for the Republicans before lil miss stupid.

A little more context?

Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who argued that local schools should teach science rather than religion, at which point O’Donnell jumped in. “Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?” she asked.


The audience at Widener Law School was taken aback, with shouts of “whoa” and laughter coming from the crowd.
Coons then pointed to the First Amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

“You’re telling me the First Amendment does?” O’Donnell interrupted to ask.

Following the next question, Coons revisited the remark — likely thinking he had caught O’Donnell in a flub — saying, “I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.

O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”

Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions. “I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.

Seems it was Coons, the self avowed Marxist, who didn't know the constitution.

She is correct

She is incorrect, to claim otherwise you demonstrate that you don't understand English very well.

I thought it may be of interest.

What is interesting is that the comment she made is relation to teaching cretinism in schools as science.

[SteamWake]

It helps to hear it in context.

It helps to hear it in context.

Don't tell aramike

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

She is correct. I challenge you to find the words 'seperation between church', or 'seperation of church and state', or any dirivative there of in the US consitution.

Or 'God', or 'Christ'.

She is absolutely correct. That wording nor any dirivative there of exists in the constitution of the US.

So do you adhere to literal construction or original intent?

Seems it was Coons, the self avowed Marxist, who didn't know the constitution.

Nor, apparently, did James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution" and author of the First Amendment.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/detach.htm

Madison was also against any government support of religion (which could arguably extend to tax priveleges) and taxpayer-funded chaplains for Congress and the military.

So do you adhere to literal construction or original intent?

Before I can answer that question common definitions must be established.

[the_tyrant]

Moved to separate thread

[krashkart]

* deleted out of respect for the thread *

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Before I can answer that question common definitions must be established.

I usually hold that to be a requirement for discussion on 'Separation' as well. What do you mean by 'Separation of Church and State', and why does that make you for or against it.

I personally believe in 'Separation', which for me means that the Government is not allowed to interfere with religious beliefs (at least as long as they don't break any laws governing other rights of the individual), and Religion is not allowed to interfere with the Government. This does not mean that religious people can't hold government office - quite the opposite. It means that Religions organizations can't tell the government what it may or may not do.

As to my comment on 'Literal Construction' and 'Original Intent', it's something that I trot out sometimes in cases like this. I observe that sometimes the same people who insist on Literal Construction (i.e. "If it doesn't say it, then it doesn't mean it") in this context are the same ones are the same ones who follow Original Intent ("You have to explore what they really meant") in cases like the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment.

I'm not saying you do that, which is why I asked. But some do, which is why I felt the need to ask.